Trouble logging in?If you can't remember your password or are having trouble logging in, you will have to reset your password. If you have trouble resetting your password (for example, if you lost access to the original email address), please do not start posting with a new account, as this is against the forum rules. If you create a temporary account, please contact us right away via Forum Support, and send us any information you can about your original account, such as the account name and any email address that may have been associated with it.

Communists party was formed by farmers and slaves, and just because the majority member are han, doesnt mean there aren't any other race in it. sorry I just don't like to see people separating chinese into different races. kinda racist in a way

Here is the problem. If you don't achknownledge the difference between Tibetian and Han, you are denying the existance of Tibet culture. You can tell me whether that is racism or not.

Being a non-racist is to treat everyone fairly plus achknowledge and respect each other's difference.

What is this supposed to mean? China is in a better place now than it would have been otherwise? Isn't that a straw man argument?

As I recall the communist party led to a ton of suffering within China. Wasn't there mass starvation in China during the reign of Mao? Didn't the breakdown of the Red Guard cause a ton of violence and strife within China? I'm not a history buff so anyone who knows more, feel free to jump in and clarify. But that reasoning would be like saying "I'm glad George Bush is in charge of the United States - we're in a better place now than we'd be otherwise. (Look, no terrorist attacks, and we only had to give up a bit of our freedoms - all thanks to George Bush, amirite?!)" Who can really say that?

As for what's going on in China now, there are loads of problems. Partly due to the restrictive nature of the government corruption and public suffering occur, but the people can't speak out against it. Industries are flourishing but it's coming heavily at the expense of China's environment. That massively hurts the population and is arguably government negligence. China's growth doesn't seem sustainable unless they view their entire population and land as expendable, and they're going to be feeling the impacts of their current activity in the near future.

i guess i stated it wrong.. it was the right decision to follow a more controlled economy right after the PRC gained independence.. sure there were a lot of problems, but chinas economic growth in that time was ahead of other developing countries - without a doubt. most of these countries tried democracy, failed, and led to military rule, with a few exceptions. even these exceptions did not ever match up to chinese growth.. mass starvation? the reason mass starvation and acute economic problems were avoided, unlike in say india, which followed the opposite form of governance was because of the controlled government. the chinese opening up the economy would probably not have been so succesful if this basis wasnt there.

also, it wasnt like it was just, ' support the nationalists or support the communists '. if the nationalist government was efficient, there wouldve never been any need for a revolution of sorts in the first place. the switch to communism was far from peaceful. it was started purely on an ideological basis - in essence it was based on the russian revolution ( really ). what is seen as a weak government (in russia it was monarchy) should not be allowed to rule. i mean very specifically at that time it was probably better to support the communists. as a poster above said, commie china > pre commie china. they couldve hardly expected maos reign to be the way it was then right? and whose to say if a different government was there the same thing wouldnt have happened? or come under military rule?

yeah, sure there are problems. can you weigh them against chinese success?

however i do strongly believe youre right about one thing, their policy probably isnt sustainable. its more like at the time, that is in 1949, having a controlled economy, having food security etc, was most important. now is a different story altogether. also, as much as there have been many benefits, as you pointed out there have been many drawbacks. in my point of view, these drawbacks of their policies and administration are the root of the tibet problem.

Here is the problem. If you don't achknownledge the difference between Tibetian and Han, you are denying the existance of Tibet culture. You can tell me whether that is racism or not.

we are not ignoring the culture, we rather peole by their region than looking at them by races. Say If I live in beijin, and I see a han-chinese and he is from tibet, I will see him as tibetan (from thatregion) instead of looking him as han-chinese.

we are not ignoring the culture, we rather peole by their region than looking at them by races. Say If I live in beijin, and I see a han-chinese and he is from tibet, I will see him as tibetan (from thatregion) instead of looking him as han-chinese.

mixing with different culture or race does not mean we ignore them

explain what you think is ignoring the culture

Ignoring the culture will be like since we conquered you, you now have to speak our language, go to our school, practice our regilion and be assimulated into our culture. We also will make extra effort to prevent you from passing down your own heritage. So, books in your language is not allowed. TV station/newspaper in your language is not allowed. Public speaking in your language is not allowed. You can't built the church of your religion.

This is an extreme case of what is the meaning of ignoring the culture. Usually people do part or some of the above.

Ignoring the culture will be like since we conquered you, you now have to speak our language, go to our school, practice our regilion and be assimulated into our culture. We also will make extra effort to prevent you from passing down your own heritage. So, books in your language is not allowed. TV station/newspaper in your language is not allowed. Public speaking in your language is not allowed. You can't built the church of your religion.

This is an extreme case of what is the meaning of ignoring the culture. Usually people do part or some of the above.

none of wut u listed happened in morden china. everyone is required to learn mandrin because it is the national language.

none of wut u listed happened in morden china. everyone is required to learn mandrin because it is the national language.

I did say that you are required to learn my language right? That itself is not that bad if equal status is granted to tibetian language. Did that happen?

Also, Dalai Lama's the living god of the Tibetian. Are they allow to have his picture up on the wall? Or in the name of national security interest, we are going to degrade your living god to a criminal?

If it is like you said, all of above didn't happen and Tibetian agree with that. Then, I see China's handling of the region is at least reasonable in general.

Communists party was formed by farmers and slaves, and just because the majority member are han, doesnt mean there aren't any other race in it. sorry I just don't like to see people separating chinese into different races. kinda racist in a way.

You could answer my question. How many minority leaders with real power have there been in the history of CCP?

It is not a racial discrimination matter; respect for ethnic difference and diversity is the fundamental foundation of multicultural society. In China there surely exist ethnic groups with their own languages and cultures. Even Chinese Consistution proclaimes it. And, 55 minorities, including Tibetan and Uyghur, have the fear of assimilation by vast majority Hans. It is one (though not sole) root of such problems.

Counter-argument in advance:
Yes some western States have prima facie similar structures (Bretagne - France, Frisian - Netherlands, Wales - England and so on). You do not need to invoke them for I know well and they are not relevant to forcible oppression at least today.

Citien of PRC age 18 or over, does not matter Culture, race, sex, profession, family background, religious believe, education level, financial level and residence period all have right to elect or to be eleceted

even criminals have rights to be elected as long u do not have you political rights striped.

You could answer my question. How many minority leaders with real power have there been in the history of CCP?

It is not a racial discrimination matter; respect for ethnic difference and diversity is the fundamental foundation of multicultural society. In China there surely exist ethnic groups with their own languages and cultures. Even Chinese Consistution proclaimes it. And, 55 minorities, including Tibetan and Uyghur, have the fear of assimilation by vast majority Hans. It is one (though not sole) root of such problems.

Counter-argument in advance:
Yes some western States have prima facie similar structures (Bretagne - France, Frisian - Netherlands, Wales - England and so on). You do not need to invoke them for I know well and they are not relevant to forcible oppression at least today.

Yes, okay, there haven't been ANY minority leaders that I personally know of in the PRC. However, answer me this: How many minority leaders have the USA had? How many non-White, non-Christian, non-male presidents have ever been sworn in? Does that mean the US is undemocratic/racist/evil?

What minorities in what countries do not face assimilation by the dominant culture? Seriously, the points you raise are valid, but they are indeed what is faced by every minority in every multi-racial country.

As much as I personally detest the PRC government and everything it stands for, the Chinese people are NOT racist in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karasuma

I did say that you are required to learn my language right? That itself is not that bad if equal status is granted to tibetian language. Did that happen?

Also, Dalai Lama's the living god of the Tibetian. Are they allow to have his picture up on the wall? Or in the name of national security interest, we are going to degrade your living god to a criminal?

Why would equal status be given to the Tibetan language? How can it be a national language if only a small small small minority of people speak it? Who cares if it's a national language? What difference does it make in actuality? I speak Mandarin in the US and English in China, neither are national languages. Does anyone care? Does that prohibit me from expressing myself in that language?

Also, due to the separation of church and state, being a "living god" does not give you any sort of exemptions in the judicial system. A murder by a living god is still a murder. That said, I'm not saying that Dalai Lama is a criminal under any judicial system. Labeling someone like him a criminal should not be deemed wrongdoing due to religious status.

Red army did liberate China and defended the country against Japanese Invasions. As for Mao's Reign, we are not proud what government has done, same thing as racism in werstern society, it's a shameful past I dont know why people still like to bring it up. Chinese government went through different stages within the history, some good some bad...

Because it's important to learn from it to make sure that it doesn't happen again. Racism makes a lot of people in America uneasy but racism still happens, and it's important to discuss it. Now that we're faced with the prospect of an African American becoming president the issue may resurface, even slightly.

Why is it important to bring up Mao's reign? Because there are people who believe that the current government can and has done no wrong. It's committed atrocities just like any other. Never be fooled into thinking that a system is perfect. The current government is not Mao's government, but it is derived from it. This is just like how people bring up President Nixon's corruption, or the "witch hunt" for communists of the McCarthy era - these are black marks on the US government, but they don't mean that it's all bad. Rather, it's important to make sure that we don't repeat those things, and to not fool ourselves into thinking that they can't or won't happen again.

Quote:

Talking about environment issue, who are the people behind all the heavy industrial factories??

I'm sorry, but you can't turn it on American companies. Do you know why those companies build their factories in China? It's because it's cheaper in China. Why is it cheaper? Because China doesn't have the environmental legislation that other developed countries do! Who makes the legislation? The government! So tell me, whose fault is it? The corporations don't exist to protect the people, the government does. The government is sacrificing its lands and its people for the sake of economics. This is acceptable to some people. Perhaps it is acceptable to the Chinese government, too. As you can tell from my wording, I don't like the thought of it.

That aside, China is the #1 consumer of coal in the world. This doesn't just power factories of foreign companies, it powers China's electricity. Electricity is needed for growth and development. Perhaps they're doing the best that they can. I think they should be making a greater effort to switch to nuclear power and switch off of coal. But coal is so cheap, and so plentiful - it's easier to take debt on the environment in order to make some short-term economic gains, isn't it? The current government will receive praise for "advancing" China until the environmental concerns become unbearable and China is a toxic wasteland. But by then it'll be another government's problem, won't it?

China isn't alone in doing that - the US government also abuses the environment for short-term gains. The difference between the US and China is that China seems to be sacrificing all of its lands for these gains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by oompa loompa

also, it wasnt like it was just, ' support the nationalists or support the communists '. if the nationalist government was efficient, there wouldve never been any need for a revolution of sorts in the first place. the switch to communism was far from peaceful. it was started purely on an ideological basis - in essence it was based on the russian revolution ( really ). what is seen as a weak government (in russia it was monarchy) should not be allowed to rule. i mean very specifically at that time it was probably better to support the communists. as a poster above said, commie china > pre commie china. they couldve hardly expected maos reign to be the way it was then right? and whose to say if a different government was there the same thing wouldnt have happened? or come under military rule?

yeah, sure there are problems. can you weigh them against chinese success?

however i do strongly believe youre right about one thing, their policy probably isnt sustainable. its more like at the time, that is in 1949, having a controlled economy, having food security etc, was most important. now is a different story altogether. also, as much as there have been many benefits, as you pointed out there have been many drawbacks. in my point of view, these drawbacks of their policies and administration are the root of the tibet problem.

I don't know the exact reasons for the switch to communism - I don't know whether the nationalist government was efficient or not. From what I remember from high school history (which was a long time ago and probably incredibly biased as well) communism didn't come to China because the national government was so utterly horrible, but because communism essentially enticed people and had a sort of cult following. The communists decided that they wanted to redo the entire country over, and that plunged it into civil war.

But then America has always been extremely biased against communism, and that's probably apparent in the public education system.

We can't say whether China would be better or not had that never happened. But that was really my point - your statement seemed to be inferring that China is in a better place now than it would have been, but I don't really think we can say that. Maybe some historian specialists with training in world affairs and economics could speculate on it, but I've never heard one do so.

@Karasuma
The Dalai Lama is in no way or form a "god" to anyone. If you've been following the current situation at all, you'd know that the younger Tibetans don't even want to follow him because they think he's inept at negotiations.

Right...
You know, if you want people from other ethnic groups to look for power, then they need to actually try to obtain power. A lot of you are under the impression that China is "invading" Tibet. That just simply isn't true. A more analogous situation is if there's a portion of the United States where there's predominantly white people, and then black people started moving in, and the white people began to revolt against it. That's what it's more like.

It's funny, too, because ultimately it's about cultural integration and spread. The same thing is happening all over the world with American culture, especially in the Middle East, where the powers feel that a foreign mindset is taking over its people. It's the opposite in China, where the people feel that a "foreign" power is taking over its own culture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ledgem

I don't know the exact reasons for the switch to communism - I don't know whether the nationalist government was efficient or not. From what I remember from high school history (which was a long time ago and probably incredibly biased as well) communism didn't come to China because the national government was so utterly horrible, but because communism essentially enticed people and had a sort of cult following. The communists decided that they wanted to redo the entire country over, and that plunged it into civil war.

But then America has always been extremely biased against communism, and that's probably apparent in the public education system.

We can't say whether China would be better or not had that never happened. But that was really my point - your statement seemed to be inferring that China is in a better place now than it would have been, but I don't really think we can say that. Maybe some historian specialists with training in world affairs and economics could speculate on it, but I've never heard one do so.

The reason for the switch to communism is because other doctrines failed. The KMT/Nationalists were in cohorts with the Japanese, letting them kill Chinese villagers, steal women, etc--this was before WWII broke out, because they wanted to stay in power. When the Japanese finally invaded, the Nationalists fought against them, but ultimately failed. Although China was a republic, the Nationalists were more corrupt than any government in Chinese history, and the vast majority of people hated them a great deal--meanwhile, the rich and the wealthy who profited from their ransacking of the country stuck with them after the war and made the exodus to Taiwan. Of course, along comes communism, and in the beginning, there were actually multiple non-affiliated red militias that fought against the Japanese. Mao's would ultimately become the standout of the group, and he would lead the people to "victory", if you could call it that. Most of the soldiers in Mao's army were not soldiers, but farmers. These weren't farmers who had any sense of nationalism until their villages were plundered, mind you.

Imagine being one of those farmers who had his daughter stolen from him by Japanese military police and Chinese Nationalist escorts prior to the war. They felt betrayed, and that's why there was so much animosity after the war.

It's actually quite ironic, because the KMT (Kuo Min Tang), the Nationalist Party, is today the party in Taiwan that's more pro-China and doesn't push for independence.

Yes, okay, there haven't been ANY minority leaders that I personally know of in the PRC. However, answer me this: How many minority leaders have the USA had? How many non-White, non-Christian, non-male presidents have ever been sworn in? Does that mean the US is undemocratic/racist/evil?

Are you kidding? Must I introduce Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell or even Obama? Unfortunately the US have had no minotiry President so far, but you recognise a lot of minority figures are in power in the public office. If all the federal posts were occupied by WASP males, then I would be willing to call US undemocratic. But in reality, not.

Han people might not be racists, in that they do not discriminate other ethnicity. They simply assimilate others, depriving their identities. It is the problem here.

@astrata

Thank you for the citation. But I know the Congress has no power to submit bills; it is a organ for "considering" the bills submitted by Party. And I also know it has never refused the bills. That is why I didn't care the Congress or voting system and questioned the Party's internal affairs.

There's a fair number of reasons that fuelled the protests in Tibet: lack of economic opportunity, anger at the Chinese government's strong-arm tactics, and fear of ethnic dominance. However, the violence that accompanied the protests also weaken their overall strength; and ethnic tensions cut both ways. The Chinese government has managed to capitalize on Chinese nationalism (and perhaps chauvinism as well) to garner popular support for whatever violent response they deem necessary.

We don't get any reliable news out of Tibet, but the indications in the nearby provinces are that the violence has died down - partially due to the Dalai Lama's response, and partially due to the increased military presence. Hopefully there won't be any more, whether it's instigated by the PLA or by the native Tibetans.

Quote:

Originally Posted by karasuma

I did say that you are required to learn my language right? That itself is not that bad if equal status is granted to tibetian language. Did that happen?

Tibetan is taught in some schools in Tibet.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LiberLibri

You could answer my question. How many minority leaders with real power have there been in the history of CCP?

If you count the Hakka, with their unique language and customs, as a minority, then Deng Xiaoping comes immediately to mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by trapperazn

As much as I personally detest the PRC government and everything it stands for, the Chinese people are NOT racist in general.

While this is true to an extent, Chinese chauvinism is certainly rising along with China's growing power. With that comes rapid condemnation of all sorts of things that would have passed without too much comments a couple of decades ago.

As a further note, I'd like to remind everyone to try to keep the comments about the situation in Tibet; historical arguments about the Koumintang may be interesting and all, but they're sort of off-topic here.

__________________

The victorious strategist only seeks battle after the victory has been won...

Can we practice some understanding of the difference between cultural and racial differences? Most of what is being called "racial" in this discussion is really a difference of cultural history and customs. The Tibetans have their culture, the Han have theirs. Then we have the government -- which is trying to homogenize culture to the point that colorful differences are erased (and the implicit individualism that means) as well as spiritual ideas.

Calling the Dalai Lama a "living god" belies a very deep misunderstanding of Buddhism (Tibetan or otherwise). A few seconds of Wiki'ing Buddhism or a visit to tolerance.org is advised.

The Europeans and Africans seem to be able to handle bi or tri-lingualism as do many other parts of the world. There should be no reason that Tibetan can't be spoken locally while Mandarin be used as the "common language" for trade and commerce.
Enforcing Mandarin pretty much backfires on the Chinese government as does their preference for appointing non-locals to local government positions.

Historically, the Communists were able to take power in no small part due to the right-wing corruption of the Nationalist party as well as the interactions with japanese imperial army during their occupation. That the PRC continues to make basic sociological mistakes and blunders in their assimilation tactics is pretty typical for any aggressive nation-state in history.

The Xinhua feed is spewing a huge amount of editorial nonsense disguised as "news" -- mostly focusing on undocumented personal tragedies of "Chinese" caught in the unrest and referring to any rioters as part of the "Dalai" clique. Xinhua and Fox News must attend the same workshops and clinics Economic disparities, suppression of ethnic identity, and decades of frustration fuel this problem -- much like any other part of the world where a similar stage was set.

Besides if you going to split up PRC (or ROC), China will cease to exist, since it is nothing more than a name for all those regions.

.

All the better. Then Korea wouldn't have to worry about China trying to assimilate it (just like what it tried to do for the last 3000 years.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Astrana

on BBC it mentioned Tibet was independent from 1912 to 1950. Well, late 1800 to early 1900, China was corrupted by Opian (imported by british) and eventually the Qing dynasty was destroyed by western army. After the western army left China going back to their own country to prepare for WWI. China had no government or rulers of any sort. Regions were controled by religious leaders or armed groups. It was later Red Army was formed by slaves and farmers to reunite China. Then the Japanese invasion occured, and after that was the Chinese Civil War. After the civil war the Red Army continued to reunite China. And sinceTibet was ruled by wutever dynasty over thousand years, it is not wrong the chinese government at that time to see tibet as part of China.

The only time Tibet was ruled by a "Chinese" dynasty was during Yuan. I wouldn't call it a "Chinese" dynasty.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shinndou

The whole situation is quite confusing to us outsiders, since most of the informations coming from China are also manipulated, it's not easy to get a clear grasp of it. Still, I wonder one thing: why a country like China, where apparently (again, I'm just talking from what I know as an outsider) human rights are not always respected and where the government doesn't hesitate to use even violent methods to suppress opposing forces (wether it's about politics, or religion, or both), has been picked as the host for the Olympic Games? Isn't this a bit of a contradiction?

The Olympics is about "sportmanship", really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fome

Terrorists applaud your statement.

Sometimes terrorism is needed. In all due respect, most independence movements had terrorist elements.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geta Boshi

That doesnt make a Tibet a part of China . Korea was almost like a fiefdom of Japan for nearly 200 years that doesnt give Japanese right over Korea .

What crazy source are you using? The only times Korea was a "fiefdom" of Japan was during the Japanese occupation of 1910-1945.

Except for the last 150 years, the only time Japan was stronger than Korea was during the Japanese invasion of 1592-1601.

All the better. Then Korea wouldn't have to worry about China trying to assimilate it (just like what it tried to do for the last 3000 years.)

China has never had any real interest in assimilating Korea. Less propaganda please. Korea has always been a tribute territory until Japan's involvement. That's not even close to being "you're a part of China", and the modern Chinese government certainly has no intentions--real or hidden--to do anything with Korea other than to establish a regional trade and political relationship.

China has never had any real interest in assimilating Korea. Less propaganda please. Korea has always been a tribute territory until Japan's involvement. That's not even close to being "you're a part of China", and the modern Chinese government certainly has no intentions--real or hidden--to do anything with Korea other than to establish a regional trade and political relationship.

China has never had any real interest in assimilating Korea. Less propaganda please. Korea has always been a tribute territory until Japan's involvement. That's not even close to being "you're a part of China", and the modern Chinese government certainly has no intentions--real or hidden--to do anything with Korea other than to establish a regional trade and political relationship.

Hmmm, allowing for the fact you don't speak for the real or hidden intentions of the PRC government.... I can't even make that statement for the US as a US citizen. *I* may have no intentions for world domination -- but that doesn't mean there aren't factions within the US government that salivate at the idea of dominating. The same applies to the PRC, even within the government there are factions with a variety of agendas - including domination of different regions.

Honestly, when I think of "China" I think of an interconnected multi-cultural region like North America or Europe. There is a specific country some call "China" but it is really the "People's Republic of China". What "Tibet" is - is a subject of discussion. It may be part of "China" but that may or may not mean it should be subject to the PRC's administrative control.